rewarded. i won't stop fighting to make sure there's accountability in our financial system. i'm not going to stop fighting until we have jobs for everybody. >> joining us now, ohio governor ted strickland. what do you think about the president's speech? >> it was a good speech. forceful, hopeful, positive. optimistic. and i think ohioans needed to hear that speech from the president today. >> your unemployment tracking a little higher than the national average. you've obviously seen tremendous job losses in cleveland, cincinnati, manufacturing base. to what do you a tribute the cause, the underlying cause of job losses and do you see it as a structural problem with the american economy or just part of a cycle? >> well, i think there is a structural problem. but i think this recession was not inevitable. it did not have to happen. it was the result of a culture of greed on wall street. and it has hurt ohio, and every other state in this nation. but i do believe that the

economy is in a period of transition. and we need to recognize that. we're going from the old economy to a new economy. new energy sources, and we need to be ready for that. the only way to be ready for that, in my judgment, is to educate our young people to make college affordable and make sure that our work force is fully prepared to be competitive. >> there is an underlying problem here structurally that you and i are both aware of, is the rule changeses over the past ten years in the banking industry basically allowing them to take money out and gamble with it as opposed to collect money and lend it. i look at some of the data and profits we see at the banks from their speculation, simultaneous to the precipitous drop we've seen in small business lending. how important to future job creation do you view the resurrection of sound banking law in america? >> very important. in fact, in my judgment, the

greatest single drag on a recovery is the fact that small business cannot get access to capital, and the banks need to be involved, and they need to be doing more than they're doing. and the president spoke to the needs to have appropriate protective regulation. i think we're going to see appropriate financial institutions regulated in a way that will prevent what has happened from happening again. but i want this administration and our banks to work to make sure that our business community, our small business community especially, has access to capital. jobs will be created, expansions will be made, and investments will occur if we can get access to capital. profitable businesses that have paid their bills, done everything right, are telling me that they cannot get access to capital. and that's a huge, huge problem. >> last question for you. looking at your state tax revenues, you've done a very good job of reducing your

overhead. i can see you've done a lot of efficiency building in your own government over the past few years. yet your tax revenues are down the past four years because of the economic slowdown, which only makes your job that much more difficult. how much of the stimulus money that you're receiving is being used, not to create new green jobs or transitions in your factories, but simply to fill the hole of lost tax revenue needed critically to support people like police, hospitals and teachers? how much is filling the hole and how much is really generating growth and transition? >> well, we have both. but i can tell you that ohio has already received and spent about $2 billion just to provide medicaid services for poor, sick children, for senior citizens, for the disabled population. that is critical -- that's a critical resource that has enabled us to keep some people working, but also to keep the provision of essential services. education funding has enabled us to keep teachers on the job. >> we thank ohio governor ted

strickland for being with us this afternoon. we're also getting word today of a potential rift within the white house over the president's new bank rules, as he starts to listen to new voices. that, however, not stopping the winds of change, nor the hope for honest capitalism and a return to real innovation in science, engineering and all the other critical categories for this country. >> if i was trying to take the path of least resistance, i would have done something a lot easier. >> the president yesterday unveiling new rules for commercial banks, which recently, ten years ago, were unable to use your deposits to lever them up and gamble them with it. the president is going to try to put an end to that. the banks, of course, finding loopholes out of the box trying to blur the lines of what is a bank rifg and a bank customer that wants the bank to take the risk on their behalf. still to address for the president, after you deal with the jpmorgan and big banks are the so-called shadow banks,

which none of these rules address. we're talking about banks like goldman sachs and morgan stanley who ultimately were the ones using that secret derivatives market. they don't collect your deposits or issue consumer loans but they sure as heck use the $600 trillion de require tiff market that was insured by firms like aig who in fact did not have the money to insure the gambling. that is where we paid those people out 100 cents on the dollar. and that has yet to be addressed. i'm sure the president will get to that one, too. though i feel hopeful for this week for sure, coming up here on "the dylan ratigan show." the news you need to know. including an 84-year-old woman pulled alive from the rubble of haiti ten days after the quake to port-au-prince we go. more on money matters as lawmakers plan to fight the supreme court ruling giving american corporations and other special interests unprecedented ability to deliver unlimited money to our political process. and you thought '09 was the year

of the lobbyist. we should all start a lobbying firm. i think that's where the money is headed. meanwhile, what happened to soccer superstar david beckham when he was in italy? apparently somebody got a little too friendly. well, that and some other stories we found when we were supposed to be at work today. i never as a woman thought i'd get a heart attack.

just, out of the blue at 43. now i'm on an aspirin regimen because it helps me live the life i want to live. [ male announcer ] be sure to talk to your doctor before you begin an aspirin regimen. it's not a big deal to go to your doctor. it is a big deal to have a heart attack. [ tires screech ] an accident doesn't have to slow you down. from new car replacement and guaranteed repairs to 24-hour claims assistance, we do all we can to help you move on. liberty mutual auto insurance. responsibility. what's your policy?

we're back with what you need to know about the day's other top stories. the relief efforts in haiti

continue with the same sense of urgency they've had from the very moment that quake hit. fallout continues to ripple through the country on the supreme court's ruling on campaign finance with unlimited corporate and special interest giving about to rain down upon our politicians. this is going to be something to watch. we begin with the crisis in haiti. an 84-year-old woman found this morning after being buried under the rubble for ten days, since the quake. the doctor who treated her said her body was covered in wounds and maggots. she was barely responsive, but alive. the news comes as the haitian government approved plans to relocate 400,000 people currently cramped into makeshift camps to more than a dozen new tent cities that will be built outside the capital. theoretically that will reduce disease, risk and make it easier to distribute resources. new violence erupting as survivors dealing with the pressures we can all only imagine, desperately try to get to aid.

cameras, in fact, rolling as a gang of men descended on a crowd beating people with sticks in order to get supplies. that is obviously exactly what you don't want to have happen. relatives of americans still missing in haiti are getting increasingly angry and frustrated. the president of lynn university which has six people unaccounted for, remember those students arriving in haiti just days before the quake, on a course to build irrigation canals in haiti, only to fall victim to this quake. six of those students still not accounted for. the president of the university still demanding a search. >> whenever that phone call comes, i join the family of our missing six and demanding that such a call contain news of the whereabouts of the missing. a missing family member whether alive or dead must be returned to their loved ones. >> the reopening of haiti's main port critical, as a development that should allow larger amounts of supplies into the country, and easier access for obviously larger sea-faring ships with all

sorts of facilities, medical, et cetera, to be more accessible to the population. how big of a deal is this port, mike? >> reporter: hi, dylan. how are you? well, it's a huge port. it's the only major harbor that serves the entire country of haiti. there is a smaller harbor on the north side of the island. if you land on the north shore, it's a ten-hour drive over horrible roads. this harbor deal is a very big deal. there is dredging, underwater divers seeing if the pier can be repaired. i spoke to the head of the southern command in charge of the relief effort here, he said there is progress being made and that there soon will actually be a working port at port-au-prince. >> understood, mike. thank you so much. >> the port is at 30% capacity. so we've been able to do enough at the south port, to get it

open, so we can bring about 250 containers a day through there. so that will make a difference. >> reporter: yeah, it will make a difference. yesterday i spoke to usaid official, and she said to me the problem right now in getting aid to the city and the people who need it is like trying to stuff an elephant down the straw. the general said he agrees with that metaphor today. if the port gets open, that makes that opening a little bigger. you can't imagine, i'm here and i can't imagine everything that needs to be done. >> thank you so much for the reporting, michael. once again, we do encourage you to donate to the red cross via the web, phone, text message. tonight at 8:00 p.m., an mtv telethon will air on all major networks including nbc. again, it's text haiti to 90999 if you would like to contribute yourself. there's more of george preparing to do his part to try to help this relief effort this evening, again, on all networks,

including nbc, mtv producing the event. democratic lawmakers are planning their fight against a supreme court ruling that could unleash an unprecedented flow of money upon the american legislature. they can spend as much on political ads, threatening to overwhelm the election process with directly spent corporate money and you'll never even know it because they will call it americans for america and put up their little ad. some legislators working on fixes for this, by bans for corporations who hire lobbyists or bans on corporations that take government money. other options include forcing shareholders of corporations to sign off on political spending. i suspect they would sign off because it's such a high return. or make ceos appear in ads that approve their content. so you basically out them. at least you have transparency in this process. right now they'll be able to

give unrestricted with absolutely no transparency. they'll just give you their message. joining us now, ellen miller, founder and executive director of a nonprofit group advocating transparency in government. it's a delight to have you here. the numbers from '09, it was about as good as it gets from lobbying. $344 million rolling in for financial services. they managed to get absolutely no financial reform passed which is a home run. most profitable year in the history of wall street. that, my friend, is a high five. the drug companies, same thing. i can go down the list. if '09 was a banner year for special interests, what does this bode for this kind of an election year and can they outdo themselves in '09 to take the whole place over? >> there's no question that the money we've seen spent in elections and in lobbying in any of the past elections or past years will be sort of swept away in terms of records. what the supreme court did yesterday was to really lift any

limits on corporate spending in elections. and i think what the court also did yesterday, which i think is really important to understand, is to give us a little bit of a silver lining in the sense that they said that transparency for spending on contributions and elections needs to go online and it needs to be, you know, in realtime. but we would say in realtime. and i think while that -- we don't want to be foolish and say that will solve the problem they created, it certainly won't, but it will give the american people a handle on what's happening in realtime. i think that's the first place to go in trying to develop proposals that run counter and deal with what the supreme court did yesterday. >> the biggest anxiety is not just that there will be this incredible cascade of cash, but it will be as it has been for years now, again, look at the last decade of the lobbyist, the decade of the special interest of this country. are we at least going to get

some transparency, instead of hiding all the money flying in behind lies and patriotically named organizations that are meaningless? will we at least be able to see, the anheuser-busch wants this, the coal companies want that, if we just knew which special interest was lobbying for which rule, i and the press and others in the press could cover it. you could disclose it to your voters and we could all make decisions. but to let them spend an unlimited amount of money and hide it from everybody borders on comical. >> but we have to understand two things. one is disclosure in the 21st century means it's online disclosure. we have to redefine what disclosure means when instant transparency means. and frankly, with all of the tools and technology we have available, reporting who's lobbying whom and how much they're spending or daily contributions that are made, it's an easy as creating a text message on your blackberry or iphone. so we have to redefine what transparency means. and we have to say it doesn't just apply to this new arena of corporate spending.

it really ought to apply to the entire range of the political spectrum. so we know what candidates are doing on a daily basis. we know what the expenditures are. we know what pacs are doing. it's the entire electoral system, and the huge amounts of spending, and the lobbying system as well. we need full and complete disclosure. again, it's not a solution to the problem, but it takes us down that first step that we have to move immediately. >> the same way the banks were hiding risk or enron back when it was hiding its risks, whether it's a union or bank or health care company or coal company, is hiding the money. then it's impossible for the free press to do its job and impossible for a voter to be a vigilant voter or vigilant consumer because the government enables not only the cascade of money but hiding the cascade of money because it serves their interests and nofb else's. >> it's one thing if we can get this realtime online disclosure. but then citizens have to engage

with this information. >> sure. >> you don't just put it out, you know, for -- >> in the press. >> or just for the press. in today's world, the internet means we can spread this information far and wide and people can engage with it. they can ask questions of their lawmakers. they can demand answers from the lawmakers. you took this much money from the banks, and you won't vote for financial regulatory reform? that's the kind of dialog -- but there really are two ends of this. one is getting information available in realtime, and the other is to get citizens engaged with the information to ask lawmakers and public officials what's going on here. >> here's how i look at it. we used to have slaves. women didn't used to be able to vote. my bet is we can get realtime disclosure of money going to washington, d.c. i hope we can pull this off. >> i hope so. >> ellen miller from the sunlight foundation. today obama said that he is still committed to health reform despite running into a legislative buzz saw that has

stalled, as many think he's hit the sour spot of reform with enough expansion to irritate people with not enough reform to accommodate the expansion. at a speech in ohio the president maintained that his resolve will not waiver. >> i didn't take this on to score political points. but i'm trying to solve the problems that folks here, in ohio, and across this country face every day. i'm not going to walk away just because it's hard. we're going to keep on working to get this done. with democrats, i hope with republicans, anybody who's willing to step up. >> obama's iowa visit the second stop on what they're calling the white house to main street tour. some breaking news. britain raising its international threat level to severe. their second highest level. this just crossing the joint terrorism analysis center meaning a terror attack is highly likely, but officials stress there's no intelligence

to suggest that an attack is imminent. tom aspell live in london. scary headline. how are we to interpret it? >> reporter: dylan, the statement came from the home office, the foreign secretary, allen johnson. he said that the terrorism threat was being raised from substantial to severe. now, this is a rare step. but not according to police sources in london in response to any specific intelligence. but rather to reaction to internet chatter that an attack might be imminent. now, the home secretary allen johnson said a terror attack was highly likely, and he said that the joint terrorism analysis center keeps it under constant review and makes judgments based on a broad range of factors, including the internet. and the capabilities of the international terrorist groups in the uk and overseas. it must be mentioned that there is a conference on afghanistan's scheduled for next week. perhaps it's concerned with that. >> as you questioned, as you look at these type of threat levels and move it from high to

severe, from yellow to orange or whatever the coding is, whether it's here or the uk, other than being more afraid, or less afraid, what should people do with this information? so if i know suddenly there's a very high threat level that's been assessed according to intelligence officials in the uk other than being more afraid, what should i do? what action or awareness should i have with that information? >> reporter: well, basically it's passing a message to the public at large to be more heightened in their vigilance and to report any suspicious activity. it also means, of course, that britain's police forces will be on heightened alert and the airports and sea ports will be increasing their vigilance. normally this is a message to the public to be on the lookout for any suspicious activity and report anything they see to police. better to be safe than sorry, that's the message that will be going to the british public tonight. >> understood. educate us just briefly on what's going on with the summit on afghanistan next week. i understand this is conjecture

that this would even have a correlation. this is just the only thing on the calendar that would have a trigger in it, is that correct? >> reporter: exactly. the police are not specifically pointing at that conference scheduled to open thursday in london. there will be some foreign leaders attending, some foreign dig any tar is and afghan officials. i think the internet chatter that the authorities are referring to might be an aspiration perhaps on the part of some groups to launch an attack. but nothing specific saying an attack is imminent. >> understood. tom, thank you so much for the reporting. still ahead on the dr show, low risk, high reward. we'll talk about executive pay days with the obama administration's pay czar, ken feinberg, in the moments to come. unlock a supreme seafood experience with yellowfin and albacore tuna, crab, salmon and ocean fish flavors.

, unlock a supreme seafood experience with yellowfin nature knows just how much water vegetables need. so, to turn those vegetables into campbell's condensed soup, we don't boil it down, our chefs just add less water from the start. ♪ so many, many reasons ♪ it's so m'm! m'm! good! ♪

coming up, all of us supporting a system to this day that brought our country to the brink. we're going to break down

washington, d.c.'s choices for dealing with those massive wall street bonuses, made gambling a system -- or gambling with an honest system that is paid for with your dime. we're joined by the man who has the power to deal with that money, and maybe take some of it back. we'll ask him about it. and back to the breaking news out of the uk just a few moments ago. bob on his way to the set here, tom aspell on standby suggesting an attack that an attack is highly likely. host: could switching to geico really save you 15% or more on car insurance? host: does charlie daniels play a mean fiddle? ♪ fiddle music charlie:hat's how you do it son.

vo: geico. 15 minutes could save you 15% or more on car insurance. i switched to a complete multivitamin with more. only one a day women's 50+ advantage... has gingko for memory and concentration. plus support for bone and breast health. just what i need! one a day women's. wow! [ grunts ] oh, no, no, no, no, no, no, no. aah! [ door opens, closes ] wow. what's the occasion? [ male announcer ] relax. pam helps you pull it off. wow. what's the occasion? as small businesses are busy reinventing the economy, small business owners have a lot of questions. can paperless billing get me paid faster? how can i keep my best employees? how can i bring down my insurance costs? that's why we're building a community called openforum.com where owners can swap ideas and ask questions. will tweeting get me more customers? how can i get paid faster? i was about to ask you the same thing. join the conversation at openforum.com.

it's very important to i affect the incentives. >> with unprecedented profits rolling into wall street, booming bonuses, we know the story today, the house financial services committee heard testimony on executive pay and how rampant risk taking on wall

street created tremendous risk in the financial system and ultimately almost brought our economy to the brink. a system that we now support in a litany of ways. so why is it that the massive ceo pay days continue to this day, even with the state support, when so much of the risk has been transferred from the banks to the american people? we're breaking it down with the special master of executive compensation for this country. kenneth feinberg, you may know him as the u.s. pay czar. thank you so much for making a little bit of time for us. if you don't mind, i'd like to walk you through a little bit of an example. i've got reward in dollars. that's how we reward people in this country. and risk is the time bomb. we don't want it to blow up in the wrong place at the wrong time. so the banks make their money as a business by creating risk for themselves. which we encourage them to do because we want them to risk money lending it, investing it into the economy. and in exchange for the risk

that they take, they collect money. so the banks have all the money, and all the risk. am i on track so far with my example? >> yes. >> i just want to look at the amount of money some of the bankers were able to take out in this scenario. jamie dimon, $142 million over a few years' time, plus $100 million in stock. jpmorgan, $135 million, 100 -- couple hundred million bucks in stock. dim fold, ran lehman brothers, $186 million in stock. we get the point. cobb 262 in cash. assuming that they manage the risk and the money it all makes sense. but in the context of the decline and the bailout, where the risk was taken from the banks and given to the government, how do you then make a decision as to how much of the money should remain with the bankers when the risks that the bankers created are now in the

hands of the american taxpayer and future generations of americans? >> first of all, congress spoke to this. not me. congress. made it very, very clear that only those companies that received the most t.a.r.p. assistance were subject to my pay determinations. and the day that those banks, those companies repay the taxpayer, they are out from under my jurisdiction. >> can we -- >> you use examples. citigroup and bank of america. >> right. >> we paid $85 billion to the taxpayer. >> right. >> they are no longer subject to my jurisdiction. >> can we stop there for one second and just talk about that? congress said this to mr. feinberg, you're only authorized to exert your authority over banks that still have t.a.r.p. money, do i understand that correctly? >> that's correct. >> so what confuses me about that, and i'm sure you understand this, there are so many other plans that are still actively being utilized to

support the financial system by the taxpayer. i'm not going to get into acronyms, but you've got the short-term lending, you've got the terms lending facility, nobody cares what the names of these things are. but you add them up and it gets you to something like $24 trillion in support, not that we're not going to get some of that money back. obviously we get a lot of that money back. but that money's being deployed to support the system. why is it that your authority, sir, only applies to banks that received t.a.r.p. which only represents 2% of the total state support being supplied to the banks? >> two answers. first, ask congress that question. i can only do what i do under the law that was enacted by congress that sir com scribes my ability to deal with anything else. >> of course. >> secondly, do not forget that all of the other initiatives currently being considered by congress, corporate governance reform, regulatory reform, the

g-20 principles advanced by the secretary of the treasury, the s.e.c.'s transparency rules. >> understood. >> all of that, if you look at the whole menu, that is a much broader attempt to deal with some of those broader problems. >> of course. i'm kind of focused on, again, this whole -- i would love to get into a business where i could take a ton of risk, get a ton of reward and give all the risk to you. do you want the risk? no? okay. nobody wants the risk is the point. we're playing hot potato. but who doesn't want the reward. so what do the voters, does the press, do american consumers have to do to enable you to have a broader authority over our money, because if you're only -- if congress is saying, you only get to deal with the banks that are using 2% of the support but the other banks using 98% of the support, citigroup and bank of america to use your examples, those banks are able to pay back the t.a.r.p. money because they are receiving subsidies from the federal reserve that allow them

to make money free of charge by getting free loans from the fed and buying treasury bonds. so how are they really paying back the t.a.r.p. money when they're using a government subsidy to use the money from the t.a.r.p. so they don't have to report to you? >> that question that you're posing really has to be directed at congress. i do not have the authority, nor should i have the authority -- >> understood. >> -- nor should i have the authority to micro manage these companies. how you deal with the broader systemic problem of executive cop which is somehow freed from risk-taking is really the $64 question directed to congress. >> let's talk about something you do have authority over. clawbacks. if you look at the compensation, again, paid in to the banks, and the risk transferred to the government, and you look at numbers like these numbers here, if i pay myself to assume risk and keep the money, but then it

turns out, like aig, for instance, which is the most glaring example, where they're ensuring all this risk in the system through their aig financial products division, and that turns out they don't have the money to carry the risk, and yet they're paying their executives hundreds of millions of dollars to create the risk. are you prepared, and do you have the authority to go in and claw back the executive compensation? specifically of the ceos who are the ones who make the decision to take more risk? >> i have the authority under the law to examine whether or not a clawback should be implemented. however, it's pretty clear under the law that if the compensation that was granted, is based on a valid contract, it was approved by the shareholders, it has the sanctity of law, my ability to sort of act as a super czar or something, which is a very unfortunate term, is limited. >> understood. >> and again, i think at the end

of the day, most -- almost all of your concern is better directed at the congress. the efforts by this administration, working with the hill, congressman frank and senator dodd and others -- >> and i have, by the way. believe me, they know. but i pick up on one thing you said and we'll wrap this up. you say private companies, valid contracts. how is it that those contracts remain valid in the context of the extraordinary government intervention that was applied, not just with the t.a.r.p., but with all the other government programs that are a facilitating it, how come those contracts remain valid in that context particularly when you look at the treatment of contract law with somebody like general motors who had a similar situation in that they were under extreme financial duress? the government made a decision the intervention was appropriate, the prevention of further deterioration of our economy. so we broke contract law with the automakers. but for some reason when we see

a ceo with a few hundred million or half a billion dollars in compensation coming into the bank, while they can't handle the risk, aig, whoever it may be, they stick the risk with uncle sam and they keep the money and we claim contract law? really? >> be careful. big difference between automobile companies having contracts voided as a result of a formal bankruptcy filing. >> understood. >> there's a reorganization plan, a consensual effort. >> i understand. >> but with some of these banks, some of these other issues, we have valid contracts, which we're protected by the constitution. you have to be careful about how you challenge that. >> i get that. but at the same time, what enables a financial institution to take excessive risk, arrive in washington, d.c. at the treasury on a weekend and say, i need, i don't know, $85 billion for aig, where's the contract there? where's the constitution there? when i see one-page documents coming out of the treasury with $10 billion per banker in

t.a.r.p. money and all these other issues? in other words, it confuses me how we go back and reside in contract law and constitutional basis, when it's convenient, and we can't get the money back, but when it comes to giving away taxpayer mother willy-nilly one page at a time, at the height of the crisis, or even finding out the e-mails at aig that led to it, we don't seem to be able to do that. i recognize these aren't your problems, but it does confuse me. >> i think there are some powers under the law that i do have to challenge those, take a look at them, see where, even under my narrow jurisdiction, i should exercise some discretion in considering doing that. but be very, very careful about making distinctions between companies that file for bankruptcy and have contracts restructured and banks and other institutions that remain in business. >> but banks remain in business only for the large essence of the u.s. taxpayer and arbitrary policy decision made by the u.s. government and congress, we can go back and forth for days.

it's a real pleasure to see you. and thank you for taking the time to talk to me. you're probably wondering what we can do to stop this risk/reward cycle, to stop the big bank ceos from keeping their profits from the legalized, which is pr feinberg's point, from gambling. and then pass the risk on to you, our government, and in the process, trillions out, you heard governor strickland in ohio, there's no jobs, but the money's rolling into new york. in my opinion, there are three people we need to hold accountable. the first is the fed chairman, ben bernanke. the second, the treasury secretary tim geithner. and the white house national economic director larry summers. these three men created and even enable in my view a system that is still in play today. mr. bernanke, if you will, is your arsonist/fireman. it is clearly mr. bernanke that put out the flames of the financial collapse by offering an infinite supply of money from the federal reserve to the largest banks in america in february of 2009, after months

of programs and catharsis finally bernanke said, infinity, and it calmed down. that's critical to our stability, by the way, in the months that followed. however, the fire he put out was one his policies helped to start, in my view, by handing out those cheap loans from the federal reserve to the banks for years where they were able to gamble by levering it up. today, in fact the huffington post reports more senators in our congress are hedging on whether they'll vote to reconfirm bernanke because of their concerns about his role as arsonist/fireman. news coming through in the last half hour that harry reid has asked mitch mcconnell to see how many votes he has on the republican side that are for bernanke. meantime, three more senators, russ feingold, barbara boxer and byron dorgan added those names in opposition to mr. bernanke whose term is officially up at the end of this month. then there's the treasury secretary, tim geithner, who

remains the keeper of secrets. again, he is the one with the authority over the aig e-mails, and the provider of back door bailouts. again, those documents and the 100 cents on the dollar passed through from aig into the shadow banking system. under fresh scrutiny for his role in the new york fed's decision to funnel billions through aig and big banks and ongoing refusal to reveal that e-mail trail which could show why the fed had to do it. and the last in the trifecta is a man that i like to call the high priest of financial deregulation, larry summers. he was treasury secretary under president clinton, and summers, one of the key architects of the bank rule changes, incentivizing the risk taking that mr. stiglets was talking about in his testimony earlier today. those policies remain unchecked to this day, despite a various list of proposals. mr. feinberg just referenced to alter it. in my view, the buck stops with these three men. and it is so good to know this week that voices like chairman

paul volcker, and professor elizabeth warren, who understand the structural flaws in a system that takes other people's money and gambles with it, that allows uncollateralized insurance to come into the marketplace and allow willy-nilly gambling, now maybe it's time for some of the old voices to go in order to give the new voices, like warren and volcker, a chair. we can only hope. back to the breaking news that we've been following out of britain over the past few moments. the uk raising their threat level to severe which is the highest level they can achieve with their system. here's how the joint terrorism center describes the intelligence that caused them to alter the level. they say a terror attack highly likely, while stressing there is no intelligence to suggest the attack is in fact imminent. nbc news justice correspondent pete williams, live in washington. pete, i'll ask you some of the same questions i asked tom aspell, what are we to make of this? >> reporter: we're to make of it, i think, that the british

government is now taking the same steps that the u.s. government took last week. you may recall that we reported last week that u.s. officials were concerned about a stream of intelligence coming out of yemen from the group called al qaeda in the arabian peninsula, suggesting that they were continuing to try to mount some kind of attack against the u.s. it was not specific. but in response to it, the u.s. government did announce, and the homeland security secretary janet napolitano did say the u.s. was going to tighten up further security at airports. more patdowns, more federal air marshals, more screening, more behavioral monitors. what we're told now is that the british government is taking this step in response to the same stream of intelligence. they're in essence, dylan, doing what we did last week. the department of homeland security has just put out a statement to that effect. pardon me while i turn away from you to read it. it says the united kingdom is raising its measures to effectively where we are with

the airport security measures that we have taken and announced over the last few weeks. so that's what i was just talking about. one other sentence, it says, we have announced -- enhanced our security measures and communicated specific information to industry law enforcement and the american people. so i think that just echoes what i was just saying, dylan, that this is not some new intelligence that the british have. they're now conforming their response to what the u.s. is doing. the language i concede of the british statement is slightly alarming. they say they're raising their threat level from substantial to severe. they had lowered it from severe to substantial july 20th of last year. now they're raising it back up again in response to this same generalized concern. >> yeah, i wants to bring roger kresy in. roger, when you hear this, immediately it makes you more afraid than you were before you heard it. and it's a fear that you have no idea what to do with. when you are a professional,

whether it's an intelligence agent, homeland security, whoever it may be, how do you deal with this information? and when you're a civilian presented with this information, what are you supposed to do with it? >> reporter: as pete said, in effect what the brits are doing, they're playing catch-up to us. if you're still in government, that means there's been extensive information and intel sharing about the threats coming from aqap, and it's making sure that we and our allies are on the same threat plane to deal with potential threats. it's critical to remember that allen johnson, the uk home secretary said in a statement that there's no intelligence to suggest an attack is imminent. so for the citizens who are looking at this and see substantial to severe, remember, there's nothing that's imminent about it. it just means we're in a heightened period. >> hang on a second, roger, i'm sorry. but when you come on and say the terror threat, what's the exact word, highly likely? what is it? it's high? >> reporter: yes. what the secretary said it's highly likely --

>> they say it's highly likely. you walk into my bedroom and tell me the threat is highly likely and you tell me not to worry? >> reporter: what you do in your bedroom is up to you. >> fair enough. >> reporter: i do not think that -- it's important to try to strike the balance, dylan. i understand that. >> you understand what my question is asking. >> reporter: absolutely. the issue is, when the brits come up to the same level we are, we need to recognize they have a similar view of the potential threat. and they are taking measures to make sure their population understands it's a period of heightened awareness. the problem, though, dylan, and we have the same issue, is that there's no time line on this. this thing doesn't have an expiration date. what you can determine what aqap is up to, we'll be at this heightened state in the foreseeable future. >> tom, can you give us a little more information perhaps about the variables, whatever this event in afghanistan is, or any other things that you picked up that may be a catalyst for this? >> reporter: i think the key is

in allen johnson's statement. he said it's rather a reaction to internet chatter. in fact he said the center keeps the threat level under constant review and makes its judgments based on a broad range of factors. including the internet capabilities of terrorist groups in the uk and overseas. so that would suggest they are listening to any chatter coming out of yemen. but there is a conference scheduled in london for thursday on afghanistan. and police sources here in london are saying that perhaps they're stepping up the terror alert based on that would be a good peg for any kind of attack in london to take place. we've seen in the past that they tend to go for transport hubs, like the underground subway system and airports and things like that. we can also take it that the police have stepped up their alerts. one more point, though. it's not the top terror alert in the united kingdom. that is called critical. and we are one step below that. when we go from substantial to severe, there's still one more

step to take, critical, which would mean an attack was imminent. so far we've heard mr. johnson and other police sources say that there's no firm intelligence to suggest that an attack is imminent, although it is a serious threat. >> understood, tom. thank you so much. roger, thank you. pete, thank you. advisor:... ms. davis, this is onstar. i've received a signal you've been in a crash... i'm contacting emergency services... 911 dispatch:...onstar reporting a front end crash... on wakefield road... chevy malibu... fire/ems:...air bags deployed... ...injuries reported... advisor: ma'am, help is on the way...ok. and i'll stay on the line with you until they get there. automatic crash response. built into 15 chevy models.

at the end of the day in sitka, alaska, everyone awaits the return of the fishing boats. their safe arrival is highly anticipated. as is something else. a shipment of natural sea salt from cargill, essential for preserving the catch.

we deliver the salt on precise schedules and ship it efficiently all along the alaskan coast. saving the fishermen money and their catch. this is how cargill works with customers.

sdplerchlts coming up more on the network, a telethon to help haiti. we're a few minutes away from "hardball" with chris matthews exclusively on msnbc.ld gone to ♪

♪ free credit report dot com! ♪ that's where i shoulda gone! coulda got my knowledge on! ♪ ♪ vo: free credit score and report with enrollment in triple advantage.  if you choose a sauce based only on the label, you might be missing something. with prego, it's all about the sauce. in a blind taste test, more people preferred prego over bertolli. the sweet and savory taste of prego. it's in there. diarrhea, constipation, gas, bloating. that's me! can i tell you what a difference phillips' colon health has made? it's the probiotics. the good bacteria. that gets your colon back in balance. i'm good to go! phillips' colon health.

♪ ♪ when it comes to protecting the things you care about... ...leave nothing to chance. travelers. insurance for auto, home, and business.

tonight we'll get a big push from hollywood to add visibility to the haitian crisis. actor george clooney will host hope for haiti, an mtv telethon to raise money for the haiti relief effort. >> we've got about 130, 140 actors and athletes and singers and television hosts and people like that, that are all just coming up, not being on the show, simply to answer phones. >> the event will air tonight at 8:00 p.m. on all major networks including nbc. that does it for us. i am dylan ratigan. a great week for america, we're

moving back in the direction of investment, innovation and hard work. and that's a good thing. "hardball" starts right now. campaigner in chief, let's play "hardball." good evening. i'm chris matthews in washington. leading off tonight, massachusetts sent a message this week and obama replied. the cool president obama today became the passionate fighting candidate obama. >> so long as i have some breath in me, so long as i have the privilege of serving as your president, i will not stop fighting for you. >> mr. obama's populist tone may be just what he needs. can he ride the voter anger rather than get drowned in it? the president said he's not giving up on some form of health

care reform, but will the republicans just say no and just say no again and again and again. is that their strategy. plus, winners and losers. does yesterday's supreme court decision on campaign finance mean bought and sold candidates by corporate america? the republicans have always been a wait your turn party. is it time for the old guard to step aside so that gop can feed the hot hands, like sarah palin, or scott brown for president? what did arlen specter say to michelle bachman that has her predicting his career is over. we start with president obama's populist tone. the chief white house correspondent, and gentlemen, i want you to watch, here's what the president had to say today. let's look at some more of president obama today. it's amazing turn of tone here, change of tone. >>